Saturday, February 13, 2016

Trump understands civilizational incompatibilities

In less than two minutes, Trump illustrates why his phenomenon is the most exciting, consequential political development of my lifetime:



We'll have national sovereignty. To the neocons and the cuckservatives who have a problem with it, go tell Netanyahu how awful he is, then get back to me.

Merkel has destroyed Germany.

Native Swedes resorting to vigilante justice to defend a homeland their ruling classes won't? No supercilious rebuke from me. To the contrary, I sympathize with them as they fight back.

Miscreant protester screeching about Hate!--"get him the hell out of here".

His instincts--remember, he's speaking extemporaneously here--are golden.

Friday, February 12, 2016

Charles Murray on Trump's rational appeal

Charles Murray has been a sympathetic target of some vicious ad hominem attacks over the years, so when he began unloading a series of ad hominem attacks on Trump last Fall, several people on the AltRight were understandably nonplussed. Attempting to get to the root of the seemingly visceral animus, I finally got this out of the scholar:


Collecting data? I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, as he does allude to it in the article referred to below. It's not like Establishment disdain, especially when so utterly devoid of substance, is detrimental to Trump's chances anyhow. With said disdain, Murray is in good company.

The Republican party forfeited time rebutting Obama in its state of the union response--an opportunity for the party to reach a wider audience than just about any other time over the course of the previous year--to attack its own frontrunner (and by extension, a plurality of its electorate). The next day, Nikki Haley, feeling the electorate's heat, was walking her insults as Trump had a field day owning them.

National Review blew its load attacking him. Crickets chirped.

A couple of days ago, Rush Limbaugh endorsed Cruz over Trump. The day Limbaugh said this, Trump's national support among Republicans was at 36%. Today, it's registering at 40%.

Nobody gives a shit what these self-important gatekeepers think anymore. To the extent they do pay the sentries any mind, it's largely for the purposes of refutation and ridicule. The walls are crumbling all around them, and people are pouring in over the rubble as those newly exposed gatekeepers hug up against those now irrelevant gates. When one of them foolishly steps out to skirmish with someone rushing past, he often gets torn limb-from-limb in the ensuing bloodbath (read through the responses and enjoy some schadenfreude).

Getting back to Murray, he has an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal about the Trump phenomenon. The gist is that Trump is a predictable, rational Fishtown response to the effects globalization and mass immigration are having on working-class Americans. That's fine as far as it goes, but he's deluding his readership by implying that Trump is just being carried along by the uneducated, resentful poor. To the contrary, as Z explains:
One of the things I have been looking at in the polling data is the fact Trump seems to have a steady vote share across demographics, excluding race. Despite all the blather from the Conservative Industrial Complex about Trump relying on low-skill angry losers, he polls well with the college educated and he does well with higher income earners. In the GOP field, Trump is the most broad based candidate running.
We've looked at this before, but to see what is directly in front of our noses requires constant vigilance, so let's take a look at support among Republicans in Reuters-Ipsos most recent five-day national tracking poll, first by educational attainment and then by income. Among those without a college degree:


Indeed, Trump dominates among the less educated. And among those with at least a four-year college degree:


Oh, he still has more than twice as much support among college-educated Republicans as the next guy does. In Charles Murray's defense, I'm sure Andy Reid would be livid if the Chiefs only won against the Broncos 34-16 in their second meeting of the season after beating them 42-19 in their first match up!

Maybe it's the well-educated but monetarily unsuccessful who are powering the Trump train. Support among Republicans earning less than $50,000 a year:


He has nearly half of them to himself. Too bad his support among Republicans earning at least six-figures is so underwhelming!:


Trump's base of support is broad. Cruz's support base is actually a better example of what Murray describes Trump's support base as than, uh, Trump's actual support base is.

Okay, but that's just polling. What really matters is how people vote. Let's look at how Trump did among college-educated granite staters:


He won handily. And among wealthy New Hampshire voters:


Oh dear!

Well, Murray's still right about the genetic influence on cognitive abilities, so there's that.

Wednesday, February 10, 2016

Robert Costa, another clueless cuck


Trump did even better among voters concerned primarily by the issues than by things like perceived leadership, personal qualities, celebrity status, etc.

The celebrity trope is a red herring. It's the immigration, the reluctance to start World War III, and the disregard for PC shibboleths that have propelled Trump to the top.

Trump Train

The total number of votes formally cast and tabulated thus far in the 2016 Republican presidential nomination process, by candidate:


The latest results from Reuters-Ipsos rolling five-day national tracking poll among Republicans:


The latest market odds for who is going to win the Republican nomination:


Looks like the manufactured narrative following Iowa that the Trump phenomenon was little more than over-hyped celebrity curiosity was mendacious agitprop. The professional prognosticators got it wrong yet again.

We clearly have a front runner here, one who has earned that designation in the face of relentless opposition not only from the Establishment in general, but from his own party in particular. And while the rest of the field has blown hundreds of millions of dollars to sit in his shadow, he's spent peanuts towering over the lot of them. He's out in front and he has the most left in the tank. The race is his to lose.

Saturday, February 06, 2016

Why Rand Paul supporters should vote for Trump

Long before the Trump phenomenon came into being, Rand Paul was getting grilled by the Republican establishment for not declaring Vladimir Putin global enemy #1, and by extension, not insinuating that Russia--a natural ally in the real third world war--should inherently be viewed antagonistically:
“Some on our side are so stuck in the Cold War era that they want to tweak Russia all the time and I don’t think that is a good idea.”

It is not the only time Paul has come running to the defense of a despot. Paul defended Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on the grounds that he is good for Christians.

His comments come at the moment Vladimir Putin is putting his troops on alert on the Ukraine-Russia border and after months of effort to prevent Russian bullying of Ukraine. The “tweaking” of Russia is consistent with 22 years of American foreign policy. Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute reacted via e-mail: “What a sad day for America when a prominent senator believes that standing for freedom and justice should be labeled 'tweaking.'”
With Rand out of contention, Trump is now the least hawkish of member of the Republican field. Here he is responding to similar castigation from neocon outfits like National Review for not eagerly desiring to humiliate Russia, preferring instead for the US to work amiably with the bear on behalf of Western civilization:



Compare this to NR's Russian approach, which is mostly indistinguishable from the rest of the Republican field:
A new Russia strategy must be the projection of military strength in Europe: establishing a permanent U.S. military presence in the Baltic region, expanding joint training exercises with military allies in Eastern Europe, and providing arms to help the Ukrainian government resist the Russian invasion. Alongside this approach should be a robust reiteration of America’s commitment to NATO’s Article 5.
Article 5 is the one about collective defence, where an attack on one member is to be treated as an attack on all members. If Russia does something one of it's neighbors like Estonia doesn't approve of, the Russians must be prepared for US military retaliation!

What National Review really wants is for Ukraine to became a full-fledged NATO member so that, instead of acting collectively to thwart the invasion of the Global South into the Global North, we can focus instead on killing hundreds of thousands of Russians. After all, they're too intolerant of homosexuality (for white people), so they deserve what's coming to them.

Cruz, the least bad of the remaining non-Trumpian bunch, at least pays lip-service to averting civilizational internecine military conflict before launching into how the US should use everything short of military action to bend Russia to its will regarding the country's interactions with its neighbors:



And here's Rubio, giving his full-throated support to militarily arming Russia's neighbors free of charge:



Beyond his aversion to rekindling the Cold War, the establishment forces opposing Trump at every turn are the same ones who did all they could to destroy Ron Paul's 2008 and 2012 campaigns, to say nothing of destroying his impeccable character. This is why guys like Lew Rockwell, who has almost nothing in common with Trump, tacitly want him to win the nomination.

The Republican party, as currently constituted, needs to burn to the ground so that out of the ashes may rise Trumpian populism and Paulian libertarianism, among many other strands of dissident rightism, to occupy space that the neocons have monopolized and zealously guarded for the last couple of decades.